City of New York v. Philips

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of New York v. Philips

233 A.D.2d 290, 649 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11590

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 4, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 A.D.2d 290 (City of New York v. Philips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of New York v. Philips, 233 A.D.2d 290, 649 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin a public nuisance, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated Noveim ber 10, 1994, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion, since the plaintiff demonstrated a justifiable excuse for the delay in responding to the defendant’s 90-day demand and a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 3216 [e]; 2005; Jeune v O.T. Trans Mix Corp., 202 AD2d 640). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to enjoin a public nuisance, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Amann, J.), dated Noveim ber 10, 1994, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion, since the plaintiff demonstrated a justifiable excuse for the delay in responding to the defendant’s 90-day demand and a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 3216 [e]; 2005; Jeune v O.T. Trans Mix Corp., 202 AD2d 640). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Pizzuto, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D.2d 290, 649 N.Y.S.2d 802, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-new-york-v-philips-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack